|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
12 Mar 2019, 06:56 (Ref:3889817) | #3401 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,791
|
>>>>ACTUAL RESULT
1. Hamilton – 98 points 2. Massa – 97 points RESULT WITH POINTS FOR FASTEST LAP 1. Massa – 100 points (three fastest laps) 2. Hamilton – 99 points (one fastest lap) You say that, but you race to the rules. If fastest lap doesn't matter then you don't care about it. If there were a point on offer don't you think Hamilton would have made sure he got it? Hahaha snap! Sorry for the double post there we must have hit send at the same time Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk |
||
__________________
Midgetman - known as Max Tyler to the world. MaxAttaq! |
12 Mar 2019, 20:36 (Ref:3889973) | #3402 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,398
|
I think it wouldn’t have made much difference, both were in the title fight due to circumstances
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
13 Mar 2019, 00:07 (Ref:3890023) | #3403 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,600
|
100 points. That’s four race wins now.
|
||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
16 Mar 2019, 00:41 (Ref:3890891) | #3404 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
DDay for the 2021 regulations is apparently 30 June 2019.
https://www.racefans.net/2019/02/27/...plan-for-2021/ |
|
|
17 Mar 2019, 09:52 (Ref:3891299) | #3405 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
Quote:
|
||
|
19 Mar 2019, 01:08 (Ref:3891740) | #3406 | |
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,004
|
I like the point for fastest lap, but don't see why it should be restricted to the top ten finishers. Why not give something else to compete for to those outside the top ten? If you're fastest, you're fastest.
|
|
|
19 Mar 2019, 01:27 (Ref:3891754) | #3407 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,398
|
I think it’s the right move and it’s right to keep it in the top ten. Otherwise those at the back will just go on glory runs till the end
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
19 Mar 2019, 01:31 (Ref:3891757) | #3408 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,230
|
It would be a bit daft if a driver, outside the top ten finishers, got the fastest lap but was denied it because they weren't one of the top ten finishers.
|
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
19 Mar 2019, 01:42 (Ref:3891762) | #3409 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,705
|
As I understand it the point isn't awarded at all if the fastest laptime is set by a car outside the top 10.
It brings "B" teams into the equation, for example... an Alfa outside the points pits for new tyres and sets a time to ensure that Mercedes can't get it. Or likewise Mercedes get on the phone to Racing point for them to take a pitstop and try to get the fastest lap off Ferrari. |
||
|
19 Mar 2019, 01:58 (Ref:3891767) | #3410 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,835
|
Quote:
I was thinking about a possible scenario similar to this. Abu Dhabi, Vettel is leading Hamilton by 25pts. Hamilton needs a win + FL to take the title. Vettel hits trouble, is trundling around in 12th, way off the points, Hamilton leads, with the fastest lap. 10 laps remain. Vettel pits to go for the fastest lap, twice, having brought extra softs for the weekend to prepare for this exact scenario. Vettel gets the fastest lap and wins the title, by denying Hamilton the extra point. |
|||
__________________
Part time wingman, full time spud. |
19 Mar 2019, 01:59 (Ref:3891768) | #3411 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,230
|
Quote:
just another example of F1 over complicating something. |
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
19 Mar 2019, 11:19 (Ref:3891814) | #3412 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,179
|
So the 2019 aero changes amounted to nothing then? I watched the first 12 laps of the race and I saw no revolution in terms of how close the cars could follow.
|
||
|
19 Mar 2019, 14:54 (Ref:3891853) | #3413 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,746
|
there were some moments where it did seem that more close following was happening but was that down to the track, the DRS zones, the general tightness of the mid field?
more curious for me was Gasly in his RBR on the soft tires stuck behind Kvyat's STR on the hard tires (they said about a 1.5s speed difference between compounds). on one hand Gasly easily should have had a speed advantage from the tires to effect a pass with but could not ((although Kvyat was driving like a man possessed) on the other hand, the fact that Gasly was able to stay behind Kvyat for so long without losing his tires was encouraging (actually there were a few trains with close racing over an extended number of laps). so perhaps the new front wing and airflow is alleviating some of the dirty air problems. i doubt its going to be a revolution but imo still too early tell if the changes were ineffective. |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
19 Mar 2019, 15:46 (Ref:3891863) | #3414 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,705
|
Albert Park is always hard to gauge aero changes. To my untrained eye, it looked like they could stay a bit closer, but there wasn't long enough straights to then capitalise on it... even with Barn-door DRS.
I think Bahrain and China will really show whether there is a difference to previous years. |
||
|
19 Mar 2019, 22:08 (Ref:3891923) | #3415 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,398
|
Well overtaking can happen there and it was good to see cars running closer. But please, no more DRS!
I hope we get decent action in Bahrain and China, but anything could happen there |
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
20 Mar 2019, 09:40 (Ref:3892055) | #3416 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,179
|
Look back to something like 1990 or 1993 and see how close cars can follow one another in fast corners. I know i'm referencing years where people were already bemoaning the aero influence on racing, however this problem has only gotten worse and worse as the years have gone on.
|
||
|
20 Mar 2019, 11:28 (Ref:3892076) | #3417 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,398
|
Well in those days Aero wasn't so important, but it could be better now. It's gone too far now
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
20 Mar 2019, 17:02 (Ref:3892189) | #3418 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,398
|
Aero was very minimal then, and now it’s too much. It needs to be reduced again
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
21 Mar 2019, 00:57 (Ref:3892346) | #3419 | |
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 299
|
To me there seemed to be very little difference, most of it was because of more effective DRS I reckon.
|
|
|
21 Mar 2019, 22:45 (Ref:3892569) | #3420 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,398
|
Well cars could follow closer. However DRS must go
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
26 Mar 2019, 19:54 (Ref:3893546) | #3421 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,746
|
a budget cap, 220mil for 2020 gradually reducing to 135mil by 2023 with some notable exemptions from the cap, more spec parts, reduction of special payments to Ferrari, more equal distribution of prize money, bonus payments for engine manus so they can sell engines at a fixed price.
if true this seems way to good to be true!!! no doubt much will change as details are finalized (or if they are even agreed upon in the first place) but as a guiding principle at which to aim for this is a huge win for fans imo. https://www.motorsportweek.com/joesaward/id/00477 |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
26 Mar 2019, 20:23 (Ref:3893548) | #3422 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,705
|
I still don't see how for multinational companies budgets can be so closely policed. I would be so easy for work to be done for F1 under a another heading in the accounts book.
|
||
|
26 Mar 2019, 22:26 (Ref:3893564) | #3423 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,865
|
I like it! Best news I have heard in a long time!
The only thing that concerns me is the attempt to fund it 100% via revenue sharing. Seems like a fine idea, but it requires increasing revenue quite a bit and that is never easy. As to the potential for cheating on the caps? What is new here. The sport exists as a series of rules, enforcement and punishment today. This will be no different. Teams will push the boundaries, rules will be clarified and changed as they go and teams will be caught and punished. Will it be 100% effective? Of course not, but it doesn’t need to be. It just needs to work well enough. The devil is in the details. Hopefully this will come to be and the teams can agree to this on principle. Richard PS: As to teams fudging the books to hide stuff. That may create more than problems with cap enforcement, but that might be criminal behavior. Who is going to risk jail time to hide F1 costs? |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
27 Mar 2019, 01:34 (Ref:3893585) | #3424 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,705
|
I wasn't thinking of legal accountancy, as all work would be covered by the company finances.
It's more a question of where the truth lies when ... "that Squillion Dollars was spent on developing the new carbon fibre weave for our new super-dooper-hyper-wizzo road car that we are developing for 10 years from now ... no of course that technology isn't being used to reduce the weight of next years F1 car" |
||
|
27 Mar 2019, 12:56 (Ref:3893719) | #3425 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,865
|
Quote:
And to be frank, if a manufacturer is just good at power units and has depth of knowledge, they can’t help but to use that. That knowledge may still be proprietary and secret, but not necessarily have been generated via nefarious schemings to circumvent cost caps. For example, take Mercedes current knowledge vs. someone new who wants to enter F1 in a cost capped world. Mercedes can’t unlearn what they already know. I also expect the new regulations to have a simpler, but still high tech, hybrid power unit. So depending upon what those regulations are, we might be in the realm of diminishing returns on expensive power unit development. I love the high tech nature of the current regulations, but the high complexity means few can create competitive examples. I would sadly welcome a simpler spec that expands the list of potential suppliers. As important as power unit development is, I am personally more concerned about the health, viability and competitiveness of the teams that are not owned or tied directly to a manufacturer. I hope these proposed caps helps more in those areas. Costs on chassis and aero development. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Rules] Are more rule changes necessary ? | Marbot | Formula One | 51 | 27 Sep 2009 17:19 |
F1 future rule changes | TheNewBob | Formula One | 57 | 20 Dec 2006 09:19 |
Sensible ideas for future technical regs anyone?/Rule changes - more to come [merged] | AMT | Formula One | 74 | 12 Nov 2002 16:09 |
Future Tourer Future | Crash Test | Australasian Touring Cars. | 13 | 17 Jul 2002 23:01 |